Judicial review is the legal process for challenging decisions made by public bodies — including the Home Office — that are unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair. It is not a re-hearing of your case on the merits; it is a check on whether the decision was made lawfully.
IAUK Manchester provides expert representation throughout the judicial review process, from pre-action letters through to full hearings at the Upper Tribunal or High Court.
Judicial review allows a judge to examine whether a decision was made properly and in accordance with the law. The judge does not ask “Was this the right decision?” but rather “Was this decision made lawfully?”
Key principle: Judicial review checks the process, not the outcome. Even if a decision seems unfair, it can only be overturned if the process by which it was reached was legally flawed. This is what distinguishes judicial review from an appeal.
Before filing a formal judicial review claim, you must follow the pre-action protocol. This involves sending a detailed letter to the Home Office that:
If the pre-action letter doesn’t resolve the issue, you must apply for permission to bring a judicial review. A judge reviews your case on paper to decide whether you have an arguable case. This is a filter to prevent unmeritorious claims.
Submit Form T480 with grounds, supporting evidence, and the pre-action correspondence
A judge considers your application on the papers (without a hearing)
Permission is either granted (case proceeds to full hearing) or refused (you may request an oral renewal hearing)
If permission is granted, the case proceeds to a full hearing where both sides present detailed legal arguments. The judge makes a final decision on whether the Home Office acted lawfully.
If the judge finds the decision was unlawful, the usual remedy is to quash (cancel) the decision and order the Home Office to make a fresh, lawful decision. In some cases, the court may also grant a declaration of unlawfulness or award damages.
The decision-maker misunderstood or misapplied the law, acted outside their powers, or failed to follow mandatory procedures
The decision was so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could have reached it (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
The decision was so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could have reached it (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
In urgent cases — particularly where removal is imminent — you can apply for an urgent judicial review with an interim injunction to prevent removal while the case is considered.
An appeal reviews the merits of a decision — whether it was the right decision on the facts. Judicial review only checks whether the decision was made lawfully — whether the correct legal process was followed, relevant factors were considered, and the decision was rational. A judge in judicial review does not substitute their own decision for the Home Office’s.
You must act promptly and in any event within 3 months of the decision. However, in immigration cases, shorter time limits may apply. We always recommend contacting us as soon as possible after the decision you wish to challenge.
Before filing a judicial review claim, you must send a formal letter to the Home Office setting out your grounds of challenge and giving them an opportunity to reconsider. This often resolves the issue without the need for court proceedings.
Yes. If you have an arguable case, the court can grant an interim injunction preventing your removal until the judicial review is decided. In urgent cases, this can be done very quickly.
Contact us for an expert assessment of whether judicial review is the right route for your case.
